Pre-Election Mockery

The Militant (published by the Socialist Workers Party--SWP) concocts more fake controversy with this post:

This week’s print edition of the Militant includes an article “Would a Joe Biden White House Be Better for Cuba?” It has been withdrawn from the online edition. It does not reflect the opinion of the Militant or the Socialist Workers Party. 

Next week’s issue of the Militant will feature an editorial correcting that article.

They did that last July--that is, retracted an article by Emma Johnson published in the prior week's Militant. I read both the offending article and the retraction, and even after all that I couldn't discern the reasons for the retraction. I concluded:

So I count Ms. Johnson not guilty. Her article is actually a clearer statement of what I (sort of) understand to be The Militant's true position. She does not deserve her walk of shame.

So why does The Militant retract an article that doesn't need to be retracted? This is like Tweedledum retracting a piece written by Tweedledee. It makes no sense.

So why the unnecessary retraction? My answer was "It's just clickbait."

So here we go again, except now we have to wait a week to supposedly find out the reason for the retraction. Fortunately for us, the print edition of The Militant is posted in pdf format here. The offending article is by John Warshell and can be found on page six. So it's kind of a game--can I figure out why it's been retracted without being told?

The answer is: No, I can't! For the life of me I have no clue where the author has gone wrong. Mr. Warshell was in the movement when I joined, so he's been a member for at least 50 years now. That he's suddenly succumbed to petty bourgeois wrong-think strikes me as astonishing. The article is total Trotskyist boilerplate--there's nothing in it any Trotskyist of any denomination could find offensive.

Yet I've fallen for the trick again. I will likely write a post about the retraction, and that of an article I should otherwise ignore. I guess I'm just a sucker for clickbait.

Help me out here, folks. Can any of you find the "error" in Mr. Warshell's piece? You have until next Saturday to let us know.

----

The ever-incompetent presidential candidate Jeff Mackler strikes again. As readers of this blog know, Mr. Mackler's original running mate was Heather Bradford. After declaring her candidacy in May, 2019, Ms. Bradford was part of the group that split from Socialist Action to form the new Socialist Resurgence grouplet. That happened in October, 2019, which means that Ms. Bradford had five months to campaign with the team before becoming a non-person. 

Her short-lived campaign for veep earned her exactly three (3) mentions on the Socialist Action website. That was a really aggressive, busy campaign schedule! (sarcasm).

Anyway, since October, 2019, Mr. Mackler has campaigned alone, sitting in his basement pontificating via boring Youtube videos watched (or at least clicked on) by dozens of people. But somehow, miraculously, on October 22nd, 2020, a new running mate has suddenly materialized--her name is Ann Montague.

Ann Montague and Jeff Mackler (source)

This is two weeks before the election, obviously too late to get any changes to ballot status. Oh--I forgot--Socialist Action has made exactly zero effort to get on any ballot. So all they'll need to do is modify their campaign literature--the 50 or so copies they've printed up. They'll have to cross out the name "Heather Bradford" and hand-write in "Ann Montague". A couple of comrades working all night should be able to get this done.

I have nothing against Trotskyists running presidential campaigns, no matter how quixotic they may be. But back in the day we took pride in at least being professional about it. If I were in Socialist Action, or for that matter in any denomination, I'd be totally ashamed. This is truly pathetic.

----

Getting back to The Militant, the SWP campaign of Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett at least meets the professionalism standard. In the issue just before the election, at least three front page articles are directly about the election. Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Jarrett have actually been out campaigning and have gone on tour.

But here is something weird. Back in August The Militant published this statement:

Join the fight to put the Socialist Workers Party 2020 presidential campaign on the ballot everywhere we can! Teams of campaigners are fanning out across Washington state, Tennessee, New Jersey and Minnesota. With backing from working people, the party has already won ballot status in Colorado and Vermont, and is filing in Louisiana Aug. 7. The party’s goal is to be on the ballot in as many states as possible, as we have done every four years since 1948.

So I don't understand why the final list of candidates (published the week of the election) does not indicate ballot status. What's the point of getting on the ballot if you don't tell your readers (and potential voters) about it?

(Source)

If they're on the ballot, one would expect that Kennedy/Jarrett will get thousands of votes--some by accident, more as a random protest against Biden/Trump, and a few intentional. No matter how they come, votes are an accomplishment for the Party. I don't know why they keep their ballot status under wraps.

Anyway I'd like to know how many votes they get.

And even more important, the world wants to know if Boring Jeff Mackler can get more than two dozen votes. I doubt he will. We'll likely never find out because nobody has the time to go looking for the kooks who bothered to write in the name of the most ridiculous candidate ever in American history.

Further Reading:

• Jeff Mackler Quits the 2020 Race! (false alarm)
• Left Voice on Trump's Tulsa Rally
• The SWP's 2020 Campaign Platform